Is Dan Balsam Hero or Villain? (PerformInsider.com,
August 31, 2012)A fairly balanced
article, even if some of the content and quotes are a little
outdated. I have no problem with spammers and affiliate networks
thinking I'm a villain, since "the people" think I'm a hero. I'm
pleased that the article quotes my statement that a buying and selling lists
of email addresses by definition means that the recipient is not
giving "direct consent" to the advertiser, as required by California law to
send commercial email.

Balsam v. Trancos Inc.: The Insider's Perspective on the First Spam
Trial in California (Trial Lawyer, Summer 2012)The editor asked me to
write an article about the Trancos trial
(and subsequent appeal, and petition to the Cal. Supremes)... all of the
background that puts the rulings in their proper context. I hope this encourages more
plaintiffs to sue spammers. Update: Since we wrote the article,
Trancos has filed papers asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case,
supposedly because there's a hopeless muddle of rulings on the question of
preemption. [Note: This article is
hosted on www.calspam.com.]

Spam, Spam, and More Spam(California Lawyer, June 2011)The article's mostly
correct, although it doesn't really present the full story, like that I do a
lot of work in superior court (not just small claims), that I have
other clients, and that while two large judgments haven't been collectible,
I've recovered a lot of money for myself and my clients through settlements
because spammers/spamvertisers don't want to face me (or Timothy Walton) in
court. On
the other hand, the reporter called me "thin," so that's a plus.

Man Quits Job, Makes Living Suing Spammers
(Associated Press,
December 26, 2010)The reporter got a few facts
slightly wrong, but this is a pretty accurate and mostly positive article
about me that will hopefully bring more attention to the cause. The
article was written by an AP reporter, so it's all over the place, e.g.,
Yahoo,
USA Today,
Huffington Post, etc.

You Don't Wanna Mess With Dan, Who Hates Spam(LegalPad -
a Recorder Blog, June 8, 2010)I am representing a group of plaintiffs suing a "social networking" websitefor
unauthorized commercial use of people's names without permission,
accessing email accounts without permission, misappropriation of
confidential information, and other unlawful acts. Last year, after I
personally beat this company in small claims court, it considered
hiring me to sue spammers hitting its own users. That employment never
happened, and the company never gave me any confidential information, but that
didn't stop its attorneys from trying to disqualify me from the current
case. The judge saw through their shenanigans and denied the motion.

Proposed Anti-Spam Law Would Make Lawsuits Easier(MediaPost, April 22, 2008)Well, our goal isn't really to make lawsuits easier, it's to crack down on
false & deceptive spam. This article provides a little more detail on
how we intend to accomplish it. I like the quote from the "State
Privacy and Security Coalition," which reinforces that some people's
priority is avoiding legal exposure, as opposed to actually stopping false &
deceptive spam. Note also that AOL publicly stated that they're on
board to help fight spam, which is interesting, since a week ago, in the
Judiciary hearing, the AOL lobbyist opposed even a simple statement of
intent. We'll see what happens next.

Bill
Toughening Anti-Spam Law in Works(SFGate.com,
April 18, 2008)Yes, in all my spare time, I co-wrote a stronger anti-spam law for
California that attempts to close up some loopholes and clarify some
ambiguities in the current law, to the extent that Congress permitted the
states to regulate false and deceptive spam. That means that the new
proposed law only targets falsity & deception... companies that do
not use false & deceptive spam have nothing to worry about. The
proposed bill is intended to protect consumers, business who receive email,
and businesses who send truthful email. The proposed bill,
AB
2950, is sponsored by
Assemblymember Jared Huffman, and currently opposed by the American
Electronics Association, for reasons that seem to be more focused on
avoiding litigation than on actually addressing the real problem of false
and deceptive spam.

"Block
this guy - he is the next Dan Balsam :)"Allegedly in an email sent by an ad network to its affiliates, warning
them not to send spam to someone who apparently is as litigious as I am.
I'm quite happy and flattered that my name has become shorthand for "Here's someone who will sue
you if you send unlawful spam." Posted on a
blog on February 17, 2007. (Click
here
for a pdf in case the site goes down at some point.) It's interesting, as the poster points
out, that the network condescendingly refers to people who have the audacity
to stand up for their legal rights as "whiners" and "complainers."